EN BANC
[A.M. No. 16-08-04-SC. December 6, 2016.]
RE: MOTU PROPRIO FACT FINDING INVESTIGATION ON ALLEGATION OF FOUR [4] INCUMBENT JUDGES' INVOLVEMENT IN ILLEGAL DRUGS [REF.:SPEECH OF PRESIDENT RODRIGO ROA DUTERTE DELIVERED ON 7 AUGUST 2016 IN DAVAO CITY]
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated DECEMBER 6, 2016, which reads as follows:
"A.M. No. 16-08-04-SC (Re: Motu Proprio Fact Finding Investigation on Allegation of Four [4] Incumbent Judges' Involvement in Illegal Drugs [Ref.:Speech of President Rodrigo Roa Duterte Delivered on 7 August 2016 in Davao City]).— This resolves in great part, a matter that the Court on its own initiative, raised in response to an allegation that President Rodrigo Roa Duterte made on 7 August 2016.
On the said date, President Duterte publicly named seven judges who were allegedly involved in illegal drugs. Notably, one of these judges had been dead since 2008. 1 Two others are no longer with the judiciary, one having been dismissed from the judiciary in 2007, and the other having retired in June 2016, hence outside the disciplinary jurisdiction of this Court. 2 The rest of the judges mentioned were presiding over the following courts:
| 1. | Judge Exequil L. Dagala | - | Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) |
| Dapa-Socorro, Surigao del Norte | |||
| 2. | Judge Adriano S. Savillo | - | Regional Trial Court (RTC),Branch 30 |
| Iloilo City | |||
| 3. | Judge Domingo L. Casiple, Jr. | - | RTC, Branch 7 |
| Kalibo, Aklan | |||
| 4. | Judge Antonio C. Reyes | - | RTC, Branch 61 |
| Baguio City |
Of the courts they are handling, only the RTC-Branch 61 in Baguio City had been specially designated to handle drugs cases.
Of the four judges, Judge Exequil Dagala was already being investigated under OCA IPI No. 16-2869-MTJ by the Office of the Court Administrator for alleged violations of a law different from Republic Act No. 9165 (the Dangerous Drugs Act). This will be resolved as a separate matter in due time.
Judges Reyes and Casiple personally appeared before the Court Administrator the day following President Duterte's statement to submit initial statements denying their involvement in illegal drugs. 3 Judge Savillo emailed his statement similarly denying his involvement also on the same day. 4 Judge Dagala followed shortly thereafter, denying his involvement in illegal drugs, and imploring this Court to accept his resignation. 5 The Court, through its three most senior Members, rejected Judge Dagala's resignation letter for the reason that he was then under investigation for a separate complaint.
On 16 August 2016, this Court resolved to treat the speech of President Duterte as information that has been provided against the judges, and on the basis of such information, ordered a motu proprio fact-finding investigation into whether the four judges are involved in illegal drugs.
The Court gave among others, the following specific orders, which read in part:
(1) Invite Philippine National Police Director General Ronald M. Dela Rosa, and Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) Director General Isidro S. Lapeña, heads of the statutory authorities mandated to obtain information on illegal drugs activities, to submit Complaint-Affidavits or other information against the judges;
(2) Direct the 4 judges mentioned above to submit their respective Answers upon receipt of the complaint-affidavits or other information; and
(3) Appoint Justice Roberto A. Abad (ret.) as the sole investigator and direct the investigation to be concluded within 30 days from receipt of the 4 judges' Answers.
For the purpose of the investigation, Justice Abad was also authorized to issue notices of hearing. CAIHTE
On 6 September 2016, Justice Abad sent an invitation to the PNP, the PDEA and the four judges to (1) submit affidavits/counter-affidavits, documents or such other relevant informations and (2) appear before a preliminary conference on 15 September 2016. A conference was conducted on the referred date, as well as on 3 October 2016.
On 7 November 2016, Justice Abad submitted his report 6 concluding his investigation of the allegations against Judges Dagala, Casiple and Sevilla. The record of the investigation has also been forwarded to the Court, including the minutes of the two conferences. PNP was represented by Atty. Wilson C. Asueta, while PDEA was represented by Atty. Roselyn A. Borja, Atty. Francis S. Del Valle, and Ms. Ruby Obediente in these conferences.
In the said report, Justice Abad informs the Court that he is still awaiting a reply to a query that he (Justice Abad) has made with respect to the allegation against Judge Reyes, thus, he is not yet in a position to submit his report on the matter. 7 This resolution will thus resolve only the matter of the investigation of the alleged involvement in illegal drugs of Judges Dagala, Savillo and Casiple.
A. Justice Abad's Report
Below is an extended excerpt from Justice Abad's report. To protect the privacy and identity of certain vulnerable persons who could possibly be hurt by the revelation, the general phrase "immorality" will be used to replace a specific explicit charge. Likewise, suspected drug lords, pushers, or accomplices are not identified by their names but by alphabet tags. The same kind of tag is applied to one letter-writer and his daughter. A private lawyer, as well as other incumbent and former public officials whose identities need not be disclosed for the purpose of resolving this matter, and who are not covered by this administrative investigation, are likewise not identified to avoid unwarranted harm to them. Persons who have been formally charged in court as well as a publicly-accused drug lord, are however, identified.
Justice Abad's report reads:
1. Judge Exequil Dagala
Since Judge Exequil Dagala is an M[C]TC judge, he did not handle drugs cases. But on July 22, 2016, AAA, a former [local executive] of Pilar, Siargao Island, Surigao Del Norte, wrote President Duterte an unsworn letter stating that Judge Dagala is a drugs pusher, protector, and user. AAA also claims that Judge Dagala is a cockfight aficionado and is guilty of immorality. The undersigned sent a lawyer from the Office of the Court Administrator (OCAD) to AAA's given residence in Taguig with a request for him to testify in my investigation. But his daughter, BBB, said that her father never lived there and had gone into hiding because of fear of reprisals from unnamed drug lords. She claimed that [her] father's use of her address had brought anxieties to her family because unknown persons would come to their house looking for him.
On September 19, 2016, the PDEA Director in Butuan City said in his memorandum to the PDEA Director General that there were reports that Judge Dagala is a well-known protector, financier, and pusher of illegal drugs in Surigao del Norte and that indeed the judge is a friend and former legal counsel of the CCC family. He was also a protector of big-time pushers like DDD, a now deceased target personality, EEE, FFF, GGG (arrested as target personality),and HHH. Judge Dagala is also reported as protecting III, a known supplier of hashish, marijuana, and party drugs. When asked, however, if PDEA has witnesses who can testify against Judge Dagala, the PDEA representatives said that none of their informants was willing to testify against him.
For his part, Judge Dagala submitted an affidavit vehemently denying the claims against him. He points out that such claims lack specific facts that would link him to illegal drugs operations in Surigao Del Norte, particularly in Siargao Island. The claims cannot be true, said Judge Dagala, since, as M[C]TC judge, he did not handle any drugs case. He laments that because of the charges against him, he had to go into hiding. He implores the Court to accept his resignation which it had initially rejected.
Before closing the investigation, the undersigned asked the PDEA representatives if they have witnesses who can testify against Judge Dagala in support of the charges against him. They replied that their informants were unwilling to give testimony against him. Consequently, for lack of evidence, the undersigned is also unable to recommend the taking of disciplinary action against Judge Dagala.
2. Judge Adriano Savillo
On August 8, 2016, after learning that President Duterte mentioned his name as among the judges involved in illegal drugs, Judge Savillo came to Manila and gave a statement to OCAD, claiming that, as Family Court judge, he had no power to influence either drug personalities or the law enforcers who have been after them. He insists that he was never a drug protector.
On September 22, 2016, Atty. Gil T. Pabilona of PDEA wrote a validation report, stating that Judge Savillo had connections to Melvin Odicta, the notorious drugs dealer who was ambushed with his wife at a RORO pier in Iloilo. The validation report claims that Judges Savillo, Casiple, and ...used to receive P25,000 per week from Odicta and were seen at his house almost every week having coffee with him or attending his parties.
PDEA claims that after the police arrested Dineros, Odicta's drug ally, in a drugs operation, Judge Savillo granted Dineros bail. JJJ, a bondsman cousin of Odicta, reportedly helped provide the bail and rigged the raffle of Dineros' habeas corpus case for it to be assigned to Judge Savillo. The latter received a Glock 17 pistol for granting bail to Dineros who also helped fund the construction of Judge Savillo's house. PDEA admits having no evidence, however, that the judge directly took part in the drugs business. DETACa
Judge Savillo submitted an affidavit September 30, 201[6] strongly denying the allegations that he had, together with two other judges, been receiving P25,000 weekly from the late Melvin Odicta. Judge Savillo claimed that he had not done Odicta any favor nor had he been his legal adviser. The judge claimed further that he had never gone to Odicta's house in Malipayon, Esperanza, Iloilo, nor had he ever attended any of his parties. Although Judge Savillo handled drugs cases involving minors, none of these cases had been linked to Odicta. Judge Savillo lamented as false PDEA's claim that he had been engaged in case-fixing, given that he has always respected his fellow judges.
Judge Savillo claimed that the habeas corpus case against Dineros fell in his sala because a minor had been involved. He ordered Dineros' release from detention because it was shown that the prosecutor failed to file the information against him for almost six months following receipt of PDEA's complaint, a fact that the prosecutor admitted. Besides, the prosecution did not seek reconsideration of his order. Further, Judge Savillo denied receiving a Glock 17 pistol for a supposed favour that he gave Dineros. He also denied that the late Odicta helped him finish his house construction in 2008. Judge Savillo claimed that the construction of his house began only in early 2009. It is still unfinished although he has since lived in it.
In any event, as in the case of the other judges, the undersigned asked the PDEA representatives if they have witnesses who can testify against Judge Savillo in support of the charges against him. They replied that they had none. The police informant who furnished them the information against Judge Savillo refused, according to PDEA, to testify or give a signed statement. Consequently, the undersigned in also unable to recommend the taking of disciplinary action against Judge Savillo for lack of evidence.
3. Judge Domingo Casiple
In his September 22, 2016 validation report, PDEA's Atty. Pabilona said that his agency had confirmed Judge Casiple's connection to the notorious late drug dealer Melvin Odicta. The unsworn report said that Judges Casiple, Savillo, and ...received P25,000 per week from Odicta, had coffee with him at his house almost every week, and attended his parties. The PDEA further said that Judge Casiple was formerly a Provincial Prosecutor of Iloilo and had been known to connive with former Chief Provincial Prosecutor ...in case-fixing. The two were instrumental in dismissing the case against the Balasan boys who were arrested for sale of illegal drugs following a buy-bust operation.
For his part, Judge Casiple gave a statement to the office of the Court Administrator on August 8, 2016, as soon as he heard President Duterte mentioned him as one of the narco judges, stating that his court did not handle drugs cases and that he has never been involved in the drugs trade. He also submitted a verified answer dated October 3, 2016 stating, among other things, that President Duterte's denunciation of certain judges, including Judge Casiple, shocked and seriously damaged his reputation; that he has never engaged in case-fixing; that no disciplinary action has been filed against him for indicting the Balasan boys, when he was a prosecutor, with the crime of illegal possession rather than illegal selling of drugs, a decision on his part that carried the approval of his superiors; and that [he] had never received any amount of money from Odicta. HEITAD
The undersigned asked the PDEA representatives during the investigation if they have witnesses who can testify against Judge Casiple in support of the charges against him. As in the case of the other two judges, they replied that they had none. Consequently, the undersigned is also unable to recommend the taking of disciplinary action against Judge Casiple.
Justice Abad concludes that he is unable to recommend the taking of disciplinary action against the judges for lack of evidence against them.
B. The Documents Attached to the Abad Report
The Court has likewise considered Annexes "C" to "L," documents attached to the report of Justice Abad. Annex "A" is the resolution ordering this investigation while Annex "B" is the Court Administrator's Report to the Chief Justice the day following the speech of President Duterte. Annexes "C" to "L" are the following:
Annex "C" — unsigned letter addressed to President Duterte
Annex "D" — invitation letter from the Secretary-Recorder to the possible author of Annex "C" to participate in the investigation
Annex "E" — PDEA Memorandum dated 19 September 2016 on the alleged involvement of Judge Dagala in Illegal Drug Activities submitted by the Officer-In-Charge of PDEA RO XIII Director Gilbert V. Buenafe (Director Buenafe) to the Director General of PDEA
Annex "F" — Affidavit of Judge Exequil Dagala executed on 3 October 2016
Annex "G" — Letter of Judge Adriano Savillo to Deputy Court Administrator Raul B. Villanueva dated 8 August 2016
Annex "H" — PDEA Memorandum dated 22 September 2016 on the validation of information on the judges from Region 6 mentioned by President Duterte as alleged protectors submitted by Atty. Gil T. Pabilona to the Director General of PDEA
Annex "I" — Affidavit of Judge Adriano Savillo executed on 30 September 2016
Annex "J" — Motion for Reconsideration dated 28 June 2007 in People v. Norma P. Domingo (Crim. Cases Nos. 27285-R and 27286-R) before Branch 61 of the RTC, Baguio City
Annex "K" — Statement of Judge Domingo Casiple received by the Office of the Court Administrator on 8 August 2016
Annex "L" — Answer of Judge Domingo Casiple dated 3 October 2016
C. Invitation to the PNP and PDEA;
Both the PDEA and the PNP were represented in the 15 September and 3 October 2016 conferences. The PDEA submitted three (3) batches of documents on 9 September, 26 September and 6 October 2016. On the other hand, the PNP did not submit any document. 8
C.A. PDEA's Submissions against Judge Dagala
To ensure that no stone is left unturned, the Court has gone over all the documents submitted in this investigation as well as the minutes of the two conferences.
In addition to Annexes "C" and "E" of Justice Abad's report, the PDEA also submitted a one-page PDEA Memorandum dated 26 September 2016 from Director Buenafe. The submission seems to be an incomplete submission as pages after page one are missing. The portion from the only page submitted with which we can relate the allegations against Judge Dagala reads as follows:
2. Anent above, this Office received report from a Confidential Informant that a certain Presiding Judge, 9th MCTC, Surigao del Norte is the protector of Drug Lords and Pushers in Surigao del Norte. Based on the Summary of Information submitted by Agent ...dated August 4, 2016, a Confidential Informant divulged the alleged illegal drug activities of Judge Dagala at Siargao Island.
3. That according to the informant Judge Dagala is using illegal drugs and even pushing, financing illegal drug activities and protecting big time drug pushers in Siargao Island. Allegedly, Judge Dagala owns a resort in Sugba Lagoon, Del Carmen, Surigao del Norte which he uses as cover in his illegal drug activities.
This seems to be a mere reiteration of the main points in Annex "E" which have been excellently summarized by Justice Abad. We quote verbatim the relevant excerpts of Annex "E":
2. In connection with the above subject, this Office received report that Judge Exequil Dagala, Presiding Judge, 9th MCTC, Surigao del Norte is the protector of Drug Lords and Pushers in Surigao del Norte. He is a friend and a former Legal Counsel of CC Family.
3. Further, we received report from IIS, NHQ to conduct verification on the alleged involvement of the said personality that was reported by a concerned citizen. Action taken was done. Information gathered during the verification is that Judge Exequiel L. Dagala is a well known protector, financier and pusher of illegal drugs. He is known to have close attachments thus being tagged as protecting big time drug pushers like DDD (one of our Target listed personality who is now deceased),EEE, FFF, GGG (one of our Priority Targets who was arrested last September 18, 2016 thru joint operation of PDEA RO 13 and PDEA RO10) and HHH.
4. Moreover, he is also connected and protects III and JJJ who owns a private resort in General Luna, Siargao Island who are known supplier of hashish, Marijuana and party drugs. He also owns high-powered firearms being kept in his residence in Purok 6, Brgy. San Jose, Del Carmen, Siargao Island and in his private Island resort located at Brgy. Kaob, Del Carmen, Siargao Island. ATICcS
PDEA's submission on 6 October 2016 consisted of the two earlier adverted to PDEA memoranda dated 19 September and 26 September 2016. In addition, the PDEA submitted another one-page memorandum dated 1 August 2016 regarding alleged illegal drugs high profile protectors, pushers and users in Siargao Island. One of the four names that appeared in the list is Judge Dagala. Attached to this memorandum is a photo of Judge Dagala, a photo of a house purportedly owned by Judge Dagala, and a barely-legible handwriting in Bisaya that says that the writer knows of a judge's illegal activities involving drugs and that the writer obtained illegal drugs from a person in the house of a judge. Apparently, the PDEA believes that while the letter-writer did not identify the judge, the "judge" being referred to by the letter-writer is Judge Dagala.
In addition to that letter was the other unsigned letter written by a former LGU executive adverted to in Justice Abad's report. That second letter-writer however, was never identified nor presented by the PDEA. It was Judge Dagala who identified AAA as the possible author of the letter. The Secretariat tried its best to track AAA through his daughter, to no avail. Despite several follow-ups by the Secretariat, no witness was ever presented by PDEA.
It appears that unsubstantiated PDEA summary reports and unaffirmed letters are the only bases that the government has put forward in the claim against Judge Dagala's alleged involvement in illegal drugs. While the PDEA claims that Judge Dagala is a well-known drug protector, financier, and pusher of illegal drugs in Siargao island, not a single shred of evidence has been put forward to advance this claim.
C.B. PDEA's Submissions against Judges Savillo and Casiple
The PDEA Memorandum dated 22 September 2016, which is Annex "H" of the report of Justice Abad, reads:
1. Reference: Memo from DG, PDEA to RD, RO6 on September 15, 2016 re "Submission of the Result of the Validation on Alleged Involvement of Four Judges to Illegal Drugs."
2. Based on verification, the connection of Judge Savillo of RTC, Branch, former Judge Casiple of RTC, Kalibo, Aklan ...,Municipal Trial Court with deceased Melvin Odicta is confirmed.
3. Confidential informant revealed that the following judges were receiving money from the late Melvin Odicta in the amount of Php25,000.00 per week. They were seen in the house of Odicta's located at Malipayon, Esperanza, Iloilo City on Saturdays. They were also seen during the parties hosted by the late couple Melvin and Meriam Odicta.
xxx xxx xxx
b) Judge Domingo Casiple — former Judge of RTC, Branch 7, Kalibo, Aklan. Now a judge who was formerly a Provincial Prosecutor of Iloilo who was known to have been conniving with former Provincial Prosecutor Chief . . . in case fixing. The two were instrumental in dismissing the case against Balasan Boys for violation of R.A. 9165, where the anti-illegal drug operation was conducted by PDEA RO6. This case was also a subject of Congressional Inquiry.
c) Judge Adriano Savillo — Family Court, RTC, Branch 30, Iloilo City. He was seen at weekends visiting Melvin Odicta. He is known in case fixing who uses his position to influence the decision of the trial judge. In a drug case years back People versus Noel Ramos Dineros Alias White, et al. PDEA RO 6 conducted a buy bust operation where Dineros was arrested and his lady companion was shot dead. Judge Savillo played an important role in freeing Dineros by granting his petition to post bail. Dineros is a known drug trade ally of Odicta. JJ was the bondsman, who is a cousin of Odicta. JJ helped [Dineros'] lawyer, ...to find ways for [Dineros] to be able to post bail by contacting ...Iloilo in order for the [Dineros] case to be raffled to the sala of Judge Savillo. In Judge Savillo's sala for petition of habeas corpus,Judge Savillo allowed [Dineros] to file bail for the accused's release. In exchange of the favour given to allow [Dineros] to post bail. ...bought Glock 17 for Judge Savillo and Odicta supported the unfinished construction of the house of Judge Savillo.
The [Dineros] case occurred during that time of PNP members who were detailed in PDEA RO6.
4. Except for case fixing and favouring the cases of the accused being protected by Odicta's or receiving grease money from the late Melvin Odicta and serving as legal advisers for Odicta's, there is no evidence of their direct involvement in illegal drug trade in Region 6.
5. Our major problem during the validation of the above information is that confidential informant was unwilling to come to testify or execute any affidavit. The informant does not want also to execute an affidavit to prove that the same judges were receiving money from Melvin Odicta.
6. For the cases we mentioned, we recommend that the SC investigating body to direct production or submission of the same from the concerned courts. Furthermore, the validation on the foregoing concerned only the PDEA RO6 cases. TIADCc
Nothing further has been submitted by the PDEA on the matter despite follow-ups by the Secretariat, and despite the strong encouragement by Justice Abad during the conferences for the PDEA to submit any affidavit or show any person who can testify, under protection if need be, to any of the allegations against Judges Savillo and Casiple.
D. Statements from the Judges
D.A. Judge Dagala
Judge Dagala's Affidavit, which is Annex "F" of the report of Justice Abad, is excerpted below:
That I received a complaint from OCA of AAA as ANNEX A — pointing me as protector, financer, of Drug Trade in Siargao Island. ANNEX B — is also the complaint from PDEA linking me to drug lords and drug personality of Surigao del Norte some for them are already incarcerated and deceased.
That I vehemently, and categorically DENY this allegation, it being couched in a general term and does not substantially elaborate painstakingly how did I become a protector and financer of such drug trade, when I am an MCTC Judge without jurisdiction on drug cases. There must be some convincing and solid evidence to implicate me over said alleged act and should not come from a polluted source like the anonymous letter of AAA. Siargao island is a small island almost people are my acquaintance and friend. It is unfair and illogical to dragged my name to their illegal business if there's any, when I did not middle or use my influenced, to free any arrested drug lord in my locality, nor did I receive monetary consideration by financing or receive money as profits of such acts.
That I had been judged already in the eyes of disgruntled majority as GUILTY. I had cheated death so many times from people who want to silenced me. My career and reputation was already damaged I had been in hiding for more than two months already. I had difficulty in coming to Manila for fear of my life. I implore the wisdom of the supreme court and its innate passion for justice to approved my resignation after this administrative forum, whatever is the result maybe, I need to find a new home for my house ceased to become a home already.
D.B. Judge Savillo
What follows are excerpts from Judge Savillo's Affidavit, which is Annex "I" of the report of Justice Abad:
I respectfully submit that the evidence submitted by the PDEA consisting of a Memorandum dated September 22, 2016 signed by Atty. Gil T. Pabilona is not admissible in evidence since the alleged source of information according to paragraph No. 5 of the Memorandum itself will not testify or execute any affidavit; cSEDTC
However, with due respect and in compliance with the directive of the Honorable Supreme Court, I respectfully file my answer as hereinafter set forth;
I strongly deny the allegation in the Memorandum submitted by the PDEA, through Atty. Gil T. Pabilona that I am receiving the amount of P25,000.00 per week from the late Melvin Odicta together with Judges Casiple and ....I am wondering why Melvin Odicta would give me that amount when I was not doing anything for him. I was not doing any favor for him and I was not his legal adviser as claimed by the PDEA in paragraph 4 of their Memorandum;
I also strongly deny that I was seen on Saturdays together with Judges Casiple and ...at Odicta's house located in Malipayon, Esperanza, Iloilo and that I was also seen together with the same Judges during parties hosted by the couple Melvin and Meriam Odicta;
Since my appointment at RTC, Branch 30, Iloilo City sometime in 1996, I always go home on weekends to our house in San Joaquin, Iloilo about 53 kilometers from the City. Most often, I leave Iloilo City for San Joaquin on Friday afternoon and return on Sunday afternoon. I have never been to any party hosted by the couple Melvin and Meriam Odicta;
As a Judge, I have always conducted myself with highest standards of judicial ethics and has shunned social gatherings that would put to question the integrity, impartiality and credibility of my position;
I deeply resent the insinuation of the PDEA informant that I am engaged in case fixing who uses my position to "influence the decision of the trial Judge." I have too much respect for my fellow Judges and will not even attempt to influence their decision, in the same way that I do not like my fellow Judges to do the same on my decisions in cases before my sala;
Incidentally, the docket of my court will reveal that a few drugs cases have been raffled to my sala when minors are involved. Verily, none of these cases ever bore any possible link to Melvin and Meriam Odicta. In fact these cases are mostly handled by lawyers of the Public Attorney's Office;
Regarding the case of People of the Philippines vs. Noel Ramos Dineros,alias "White," et al.,this case was raffled to my sala, RTC Branch 30 since one of the accused was a minor. The case of Dineros before my sala was a Petition for Habeas Corpus.I granted the petition in favor of the accused as the investigating prosecutor failed to file the proper Information against the accused for almost six (6) months after the complaint was filed by the PDEA on November 14, 2007, a matter admitted by the prosecution in open court. The Order was eventually implemented after no motion for reconsideration was filed by the Prosecution and the PDEA lawyer. Attached hereto is a true copy of the Petition for Habeas Corpus and my Order granting the same dated April 28, 2008. The record of this case is very clear. I never granted or allowed Dineros to file bail for his release;
The allegation that Atty. ...,in return for my allegedly allowing Dineros, et al. to post bail, bought a Glock 17 for me is an outright lie. I have never owned a Glock 17 and the records in the Firearms and Explosive Office of the Philippine National Police will prove this;
The allegation that in return for the favor given to Dineros, Odicta supported the unfinished construction of my house is not only untrue but a reckless imputation. I have no "unfinished construction" in 2008. I started building my house in the early part of 2009 and until now it is not yet finished although I am already residing in said house;
In support of his claim that the order of release was issued after no Information was filed after a protracted period, Judge Savillo attached a copy of the Order, 9 the relevant portion of which states:
From the Information given by Atty. Delicana and Pros. Melvin Sustento, the investigating prosecutor of the City Prosecutor's Office assigned to this case, it would appear that no information was filed against the four aforementioned accused despite a long period after the complaint was filed by the PDEA on November 14, 2007. This case was not also resolved by Pros. Sustento and no Information was filed in Court despite the Order of Judge Danilo Galvez dated November 28, 2007 directing the investigating prosecutor to terminate the investigation within [fifteen] (15) days from its inception. It was Pros. Sustento who admitted in Court that no information was filed against the four aforementioned accused as of today citing the lack of personnel.
With this admission, Atty. Delicana and Pros. Sustento voiced no objection with the Court's observation that there is no basis for the continued detention of these four persons.
It must be noted that Dineros was arrested together with three other persons on 11 November 2007, and the order releasing them from detention because of the non-filing of an appropriate Information was made only on 28 April 2008, more than five months later.
D.C. Judge Casiple
Below are statements in Judge Casiple's Answer, which is Annex "K" of the report of Justice Abad:
1.1 Imbued with the required qualities of competence, integrity probity and independence I was appointed as Regional Trial Court on July, 2012.
1.2 I was assigned to Regional Trial Court, Branch 7, Kalibo, Aklan.
1.3 My sala is a court of general jurisdiction. Never in my career as judge have I presided over a drug case.
1.4 Prior to my appointment as Regional Trial Court I was Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of Iloilo where I served for seven (7) years.
1.5 Since my appointment up to the present I have discharged my duties as a judge with dedication, loyalty to the Republic, fidelity to the law and I lived a simple and modest life. SDAaTC
2. Early in the morning of August 7, 2016 President Rodrigo Roa Duterte delivered a speech where he named the undersigned, among others, as a member of the judiciary who has involvement in illegal drugs. Despicably, it did mention any factual or evidentiary basis for our involvement in such nefarious activity.
3. Our names reverberated in the corners of the country, in the press — broadcast and print, in social media, in coffee shops and even in malicious whispers. I and the judges whose names were read by President Duterte were condemned even before we knew what our involvement was. Through the years I have strengthened my integrity and my dedication as a civil servant. It was snuffed out by the President's act of reading out my name. Ridicule, suspicion and embarrassment was the necessary consequence. I felt like a pariah in the Aklan judicial circle and in the community at large.
4. The damage to my integrity and reputation notwithstanding, the President of the Republic admitted to the general public that the list from which he read my name was nothing but an invalidated report. To my mind, an unvalidated report is raw data equivalent to "tsismis" and nothing more than hearsay evidence. It only confirmed that the list from which my name was culled is unrealiable, unfounded and lacked the qualification to be admitted as evidence against an innocent individual.
5. When pressed to substantiate the allegations against me, all that was submitted by the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency to the Fact Finding Investigation is an unverified, unfounded and valueless Memorandum dated September 22, 2016 from one Atty. Gil T. Pabilona. The source of the facts and the conclusions are unknown. It remained uncorroborated. No documents were attached to the unverified, unfounded and valueless Memorandum dated September 22, 2016 from one Atty. Gil Pabilona. It is nothing but speculation and is hearsay evidence inadmissible in any proceeding.
6. In the same Memorandum, the only insinuation against me reads as follows:
c) Judge Domingo Casiple-former Judge of RTC, Branch 7, Kalibo, Aklan. Now a judge who was formerly a Provincial Prosecutor of Iloilo who was known to have been conniving with former Provincial Prosecutor Chief, . . . in case fixing. The two were instrumental in dismissing the case against Balasan Boys for violation of RA 9165, where the anti-illegal drug operation was conducted by PDEA R06. The case was also subject of congressional inquiry.
7. A careful reading of my alleged "involvement," assuming this qualifies as such, were confined to the time when I was yet a member of Iloilo Provincial Prosecutor Office. It has nothing to do about my membership in the judiciary.
8. I vehemently deny that I was in cahoots with then Chief Provincial Prosecutor ...in alleged case-fixing. These are malicious insinuations the basis of which is only imagined. While case-fixing is imputed to me the Memorandum does not even point who I was involved as well as the details of my participation.
9. In the case of the Balasan Boys mentioned in the Memorandum, I was acting therein as the Preliminary Investigator. As preliminary investigator it was my sworn duty to determine if probable cause exists. As prosecutor then, my sworn duty is not to persecute people but to see to it that justice is one.
10. In the said case law enforcement agents had a search warrant yet they asserted that a buy-bust happened. Contrary to the allegations in the Memorandum I did not dismiss the case but instead of filing a case for selling of illegal drugs I recommended the filing of an Information for violation for section 11 of RA 9165. In sum, the facts as presented led me to believe that no probable cause exists for violation of section 5 but only for section 11 of RA 9165. It was duly concurred in by my then chief of office, Iloilo Provincial Prosecutor . . . . Under the instances, it was procedural for the Chief Prosecutor to either approve or disapprove the Preliminary Investigator's findings. Prosecutor . . . concurrence with my observation did not make us conspirators.
11. Moreover, my resolution was a product of my personal, unbiased and objective evaluation of the facts as presented before me. I do not claim infallibility, but it was done in good faith. Nevertheless, infallible that I am my Resolutions are subject to reversal or affordance by higher authorities if appealed.
12. I was never charged of any malfeasance, misfeasance or non-feasance by reason of the Resolution I wrote involving the so-called Balasan Boys. If indeed I was a drug protector then the PDEA or other law enforcement agents should have filed a case against me years ago.
13. Indeed, there was a congressional inquiry about the Balasan boys. However, there was nothing that came out of the said inquiry.
14. If the Memorandum's imputation against me were to be given consideration this produces a chilling effect to prosecutors and judges. It can be translated to mean that whenever members of the judiciary or the prosecution stands to reason, pay heed to the majesty of the law and adjudicates in a case disfavorable to law enforcement agents they will be branded as "drug protectors' or are "linked" to the drug trade.
15. Translated otherwise, this means that judges like me cannot afford to rule against law enforcement agents or the State even when the evidence clearly dictates otherwise. Judges should be free from any undue influence to be able to dispense justice. It pains me that when I stood by my conscience siding on the preservation of the law's majesty I am now charged as a drug coddler. Such inadmissible evidence should not be permitted to destroy the integrity and reputation of judges.
16. Worse, no less than the very memorandum itself states that "...there is no evidence of their direct involvement in illegal drug trade in Region VI" and that, "...the informant does not want also to execute an affidavit to prove that the same judges were receiving money from Odicta." This underscores the fact that indeed the evidence presented against me is classic hearsay, unsubstantiated and uncorroborated. This makes unbelievable the allegation that I was receiving P25,000.00 per week from Odicta, were in Odicta's house on Saturdays and seen cavorting with the Odicta couple. acEHCD
17. I have not received any single centavo from the Odictas or from any one in exchange for protection or for favorable decisions. Neither have I cavorted with the Odicta couple. I am assigned in Kalibo, Aklan since 2012 and I do not handle drug cases. I cannot imagine how I can be a "protector" of the Odictas when I am in another province miles away from Iloilo and which speaks a different dialect. There has been no showing that Odicta had drug links in Aklan.
18. I hardly go to Iloilo City because when I go home on weekends from my assignment in Kalibo, Aklan I stay in my hometown of Lambunao, Iloilo which is about 60 kilometers away from the city. My time is readily consumed by my family and my personal pursuits.
19. What pains me even more is that I am maligned in my present capacity as judge when the "insinuations" on the basis of which I am linked to these false accusations happened when I was still a prosecutor and involved only a single case which I resolved contrary to the desire of law enforcement agents. This is totally unfair.
20. In the light of the foregoing, I pray that my dignity and integrity be vindicated and restored by proclaiming our exoneration from whatever malicious imputation, blemish in character and tainted reputation I have suffered as a consequence of the President's speech on August 7, 2016 and the unfounded allegations against me as embodied in the PDEA Memorandum dated September 22, 2016.
E. The Court's Effort to Obtain More Documents
The Court, after submission of the report of Justice Abad, its annexes, and the record of the case, obtained more documents to arrive at a deeper evaluation of the claims against the judges.
We have taken this extraordinary and additional step — for this case and this case only — because of the grave public import of the President's comment. This is not to detract from the usual rule that the burden of proof in an administrative case rests on the complainant. We stress that this case is sui generis.
The following documents were accordingly obtained:
1. Sworn Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN) of Judge Dagala for the year 2010. 10
2. SALN of Judge Savillo for the years 2007, 2008, 2010-2015
3. SALN of Judge Casiple for the years 201_, 2012-2015.
4. Certification from the PNP Firearms and Explosives Office (PNP-FEO) dated 1 December 2016
5. Joint Affidavit of Arresting and Seizing Officers regarding the buy-bust operation against Henry S. Caspillo
6. Affidavit of the Poseur Buyer regarding the buy-bust operation against Henry S. Caspillo
7. Joint Resolution dated 19 August 2008 drafted by then Prosecutor Casiple recommending that an Information for violation of Sections 11 and 12, Article II of RA 9165 be filed against O'Henry Caspillo, Jr.
8. Internet accounts of the Balasan Boys controversy
• Rolly Espina, Tupas to name prosecutors in Balasan Boys' controversy,20 January 2009, PHILSTAR, available at (last accessed 5 December 2016).
• GMANews.TV, DOJ probes handling of drug cases in Iloilo,28 January 2009, GMA NEWS ONLINE, available at (last accessed 5 December 2016).
• GMANews.TV, PDEA execs summoned to Iloilo drug mess probe,26 February 2009, GMA NEWS ONLINE, available at (last accessed 5 December 2016).
• Florence F. Hibionada, PDEA's high-profile drug cases to highlight congressional probe,6 March 2009, THE NEWS TODAY, available at (last accessed 5 December 2016).
• Florence F. Hibionada, PDEA gives Friday's House probe a 'thumbs-up,' 10 March 2009, THE NEWS TODAY, available at (last accessed 5 December 2016). SDHTEC
E.A. Judge Dagala
Judge Dagala's SALN for the year 2010 lists the following real properties:
1. Cocoland located in Sugba, with a current fair market value (FMV) of P10,000
2. Residential lot in km. 1, Del Carmen, Surigao del Norte, with FMV of P150,000 on which a building worth P200,000 was built
3. Fish pond in Pitogo, with FMV of P150,000
4. Riceland in Lobogon, with FMV of P50,000
Of these properties, only the first two were acquired through sale in 1999 and 2007; the fish pond and riceland were transferred through succession. The Court has no proof that would lead to the conclusion that Judge Dagala acquired these properties with money obtained from drug coddling.
E.B. Judge Savillo
In PDEA Memorandum dated 22 September 2016, it was alleged that "in exchange of the favour given to allow [Dineros] to post bail, Atty. ...bought Glock 17 for Judge Savillo and Odicta supported the unfinished construction of the house of Judge Savillo."
Judge Savillo has been consistently declaring two residential buildings in his SALN — one in Poblacion, San Joaquin which was constructed in 2002, and another in Ticud, Lopez, Iloilo, which was constructed in 2011. This appears to support his denial that Odicta helped him finish the construction of his house in 2008.
With regard to the allegation that Judge Savillo was gifted with a Glock 17, he does not appear to own one. Based on the certification issued for the PNP-FEO Chief, while several firearms were registered in the name of Judge Savillo, a Glock 17 pistol was not among those.
E.C. Judge Casiple
It is true that then Prosecutor Casiple and the PDEA were on opposing sides in the O'Henry Caspillo case; that the PDEA filed a complaint for violation of Sections 5, 6, 7, 11, and 13, Article II of RA 9165 and RA 8294 11 against Caspillo and two others, yet then Prosecutor Casiple recommended that only Caspillo be charged and only for violation of Sections 11 and 12. However, as correctly pointed out by Judge Casiple, his recommendation had to be and was, in fact, approved by the 2nd Assistant Prosecutor and the Provincial Prosecutor.
Media accounts relate that congressional inquiry was conducted over the Balasan boys controversy, yet nothing came out of it. After the probe, then Iloilo First District Representative Janette Garin even concluded that the upgrading and downgrading of charges can be traced to the lack of legal assistance provided to the police. 12 Apparently, policy issues regarding coordination and the level of acceptable evidence are needed to be addressed by the Congress, the DOJ, and the PDEA. However, this matter is already beyond this Court's administrative jurisdiction.
OUR RULING
Considering that no prima facie case has been established against Judge Dagala, Judge Savillo, or Judge Casiple, this Court hereby orders the termination of the fact-finding investigation against them.
The Constitution grants the Supreme Court administrative supervision over all courts and their personnel. 13 From this grant, this Court derives authority to take disciplinary action against judges and court personnel for violation of legal norms. 14 The rules of procedure in the discipline of judges are embodied in Rule 140 of the Rules of Court,as amended by A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC. 15 Section 1 in its entirety reads: AScHCD
SECTION 1. How instituted. — Proceedings for the discipline of judges of regular and special courts and Justices of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan may be instituted motu proprio by the Supreme Court or upon a verified complaint, supported by affidavits of person who have personal knowledge of the facts alleged therein or by documents which may substantiate said allegations,or upon an anonymous complaint, supported by public records of indubitable integrity. The complaint shall be in writing and shall state clearly and concisely the acts and omissions constituting violations of standards of conduct prescribed for Judges by law, the Rules of Court,or the Code of Judicial Conduct. (Emphasis supplied)
Note that the Court had ordered the investigation motu proprio.Nevertheless, the legal bar to sustain a fact-finding or preliminary investigation, for it to ripen into a formal administrative charge, is a prima facie finding. Considering that despite repeated pleas, PDEA insists that no witness is willing to come forward, and that it has exhausted the documentary evidence it can submit, and despite further steps taken by this Court to validate the claims by PDEA and the judges, this Court is constrained to terminate the investigation.
PDEA recommends that to sustain its investigation into the allegations against Judges Savillo and Casiple, the Court should direct the production or submission of the documents regarding the cases of Dineros and the Balasan boys.
Some observations on this suggestion are in order.
First,with respect to the alleged dismissal of the case against the Balasan boys, we note that the act of Judge Casiple being questioned was when he was still a member of the Iloilo Provincial Prosecutor's Office. He emphasizes that he did not dismiss the charges, but he downgraded it from Section 5 (selling of illegal drugs) to Section 11 (possession).He further points out that this was duly concurred with by the Iloilo Provincial Prosecutor. He further emphasizes that the charge against him has nothing to do with an act that he had performed as a judge.
The point of Judge Casiple is well-taken. The Court does not take administrative disciplinary jurisdiction for acts done by prosecutors. Their superiors can reverse, modify or affirm their official actions, or take disciplinary actions when warranted. On this score alone, we state that the claim against Judge Casiple appears to have no basis. HESIcT
Second, with respect to the alleged undue release of Dineros by Judge Savillo, the Court clarifies that the proper course to correct an alleged irregular judicial action is to appeal a final order or to bring a petition for certiorari to a higher court. No such action appears to have been taken in this case. An administrative disciplinary action is not the solution for the prosecution, if minded, to correct a judge's order. Further, it appears that only the PDEA believed that the release order of Judge Savillo was not in order. The prosecution did not refute its failure to file the appropriate information within the required period of time. The prosecution likewise did not move for a reconsideration of the order of release.
Likewise, on this score alone, we believe that there is no basis to sustain the Court's effort to investigate Judge Savillo, as the claim against him appears to have no basis.
Third, it is highly curious why the PDEA suggests that the Supreme Court investigate long-closed cases just to sustain the charge made by the PDEA, and publicized by President Duterte, that Judges Savillo and Casiple are protectors of illegal drugs. The order to release signed by Judge Savillo was issued in 2008, a full 8 years ago. It was well-reasoned and based on the simple fact that the State has no further reason to detain Dineros, there being no appropriate information filed against him that could sustain Dineros' continued detention. On the other hand, the downgrading of the charge against the Balasan boys by then Prosecutor Casiple was made in 2009, a full seven years ago, by an office under the Executive Department, not under the Judiciary.
The judiciary is the protector of constitutional rights, primed to observe fairness and due process at all times, careful not to transgress its constitutional administrative boundary. It cannot perform the functions of the PDEA, the PNP, nor the Public Prosecutors.
Fourth, the PDEA would do well to ask its informants how the two judges who live significant distances away from Esperanza, Iloilo, had managed to attend weekend parties or have weekly coffee in the house of the Odicta couple, and how they, while not handling drugs cases, could be valuable enablers of drug trade to the point of each getting a regular weekly allotment of P25,000 from the Odicta couple. Judge Savillo also denies ever having owned a Glock 17 pistol which fact he suggests government confirm from the PNP, or that his house was financed by a drug personality. Our verification so far, indicates Judge Savillo has basis for his claims.
The Court observes that with respect to the claim against Judge Dagala, the PDEA could have presented several agents and officers who participated in making the Summary of Information dated 1 August, 20 August and 24 August 2016. They could have presented the two unnamed letter-writers, but they did not. The Secretariat went to the extent of tracing the daughter of one of the supposed letter-writers, to no avail.
During the 3 October 2016 conference, PDEA informed Justice Abad that he had already asked for affidavits from 12 regional/intelligence officers but was told that no informant wants to come forward. When Justice Abad asked about affidavits from agents, Atty. Del Valle said most drugs cases are based on information from informants. We note that in the case of Judges Savillo and Casiple, only one informant's input was made the basis of a validation report.
The Court also takes note of the dangers and the damage that the three judges claim have stalked them and their families since their names were publicly announced by President Duterte. It is a matter of utmost importance that judges be protected from unwarranted vilification so that they, and the rest of the judiciary, can remain firm in applying the law and courageous despite the many dangers they face.
The problems that have been created by the premature announcement of suspected drug coddlers under the system of the PDEA are most poignantly articulated by Judge Casiple when he says in his Affidavit:
15. Translated otherwise, this means that judges like me cannot afford to rule against law enforcement agents or the State even when the evidence clearly dictates otherwise. Judges should be free from any undue influence to be able to dispense justice. It pains me that when I stood by my conscience siding on the preservation of the law's majesty I am now charged as a drug coddler. Such inadmissible evidence should not be permitted to destroy the integrity and reputation of judges. caITAC
xxx xxx xxx
20. In the light of the foregoing, I pray that my dignity and integrity be vindicated and restored by proclaiming our exoneration from whatever malicious imputation, blemish in character and tainted reputation I have suffered as a consequence of the President's speech on August 7, 2016 and the unfounded allegations against me as embodied in the PDEA Memorandum dated September 22, 2016.
The Court hereby calls upon the various organizations of judges and court personnel to take up the issues that have surfaced in this investigation, as illumined by this resolution, in order that the rule of law, which requires as precondition a level of confidence on the part of the judges, be enabled as to protect the lives and reputation of judges and court personnel even while the Court zealously disciplines its ranks.
The relevant committees in the Court proper as well as in its various offices will likewise soon convene to further the discussion on the rule of law vis-a-vis the independence of the judiciary and the due protection of judges.
We affirm our commitment not to shirk from our responsibility of imposing disciplinary action upon any erring judicial officer or personnel. Yet, we must also be steadfast in our undertaking to not be the instrument that destroys the reputation of any member of the bench by pronouncing guilt based merely on speculation. 16
WHEREFORE,the Court hereby DECLARES that no evidence has been put forward to link Judges Exequil L. Dagala, Adriano S. Savillo, and Domingo L. Casiple, Jr. to the use, proliferation, trade or involvement in illegal drugs, and thereby this fact-finding investigation against them is hereby TERMINATED." Caguioa, J.,on leave. (adv6)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) FELIPA B. ANAMA
Clerk of Court
(With Concurring Opinion of Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen)
Separate Opinions
LEONEN, J.,concurring:
I concur with the Resolution. I add the following observations:
The fact finding investigation on the allegations of four (4) incumbent judges mentioned by President Rodrigo Roa Duterte was sui generis.
Unlike the usual investigations done by the Office of the Court Administrator, there was neither a verified pleading nor a complainant for these cases. In view of the public interest involved, this Court acted motu propio and decided not to delegate the investigation to the Court Administrator. Instead, we agreed to request the services of a retired Justice of this Court.
We were also clear in our resolution that (1) we were treating the speech of President Duterte as information and that (2) the Philippine National Police (PNP) and the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) would only be invited to submit complaint-affidavits or other information.We did not constitute the PNP and the PDEA as complainants, who would usually bear the burden of proof or of evidence.
A motu propio investigation therefore meant that we would use the full resources of the Court in order to work on leads that would be provided by the PNP and the PDEA by validating the information through investigations that we constitute ourselves. This means that we should also be able to provide inputs to the ongoing fact-finding investigation and that we will only terminate the investigation after a final and complete report is submitted. Indeed, the report from retired Justice Roberto Abad provided a few leads that were investigated, since these did not require the deployment of an unreasonable amount of resources.
Our judges, whose reputations may have been sullied by the premature and public disclosure of their names, deserve more than simply a finding that the President acted on advice from the PDEA or the PNP, which does not seem to have been properly validated. If we had the proper resources and personnel we could have gone further and ensure that we can say with reasonable confidence that the charges against them are most likely untrue.
I am not unaware that the proper remedy should have been for our judges to have filed a Petition for Habeas Data against the Executive Secretary, the Philippine National Police, or the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency. I find it strange that they have not done so. For now, however, I argue that there is no available evidence to warrant a full-blown administrative investigation. I believe that this Court truly wants to contribute to removing any doubt regarding the constant pronouncement of the President that there is the perceived impunity with respect to the prosecution of offenses involving illegal drugs or its attendant corruption. It will be these cases that present us with opportunities to do so.
I reiterate the observations I made in Re: Interview with Atty. Lorna Kapunan on Corruption in the Judiciary:1
"...[W]e need to restructure our bureaucracy to be able to proactively address alleged corruption in the judiciary. Specifically, I propose that we should have our own active investigation unit (Internal Affairs Unit) that answers to a committee of this court.
Oftentimes, the burden of identifying, gathering, maintaining, and presenting collaborating evidence falls only on the courageous complainant that comes forward to present his or her grievances. Our present offices, even under the Office of the Court Administrator, lack the skill and resources to do intensive surveillance and investigation that can lead to the identification of possible sources of evidence. Most of the time, our system is passive: It waits for evidence to be presented. Furthermore, the Office of the Court Administrator is tasked to assist judges with their administrative and logistical needs. I find these roles as contradictory to the Office of the Court Administrator's additional task to investigate and ensure discipline among judges.
Complainants who come forward often suffer from lack of resources. They usually feel that they are going up against an entire system. Often, the judges they go up against have personal relationships which they can mobilize to support their case and weaken the resolve of complainants. Without our own independent investigating unit, we rely on these weaknesses to resolve serious allegations against the judiciary.
We all suffer by exaggerated association. We should revise the incentives in our rules and institutional set-up so that those who have genuine grievances can be more efficiently heard and protected. In this way, we isolate the few who have lost their way. The better we are at identifying, prosecuting, and penalizing breaches of our ethical rules, the more deterrence we provide." cDHAES
Finally, so that I am not misconstrued: The public announcement regarding the involvement of the judges concerned made by the President was, at the very least, premature. It appears that it was not fully supported by evidence that were professionally validated and which could be presented in a court of law. All it achieved was to shame the judges and others similarly situated. It also dangerously contributes to the President's public misperception that courts of law are incompetent. The truth is that, in these cases, evidence is not available from the law enforcers, who could have presented opportunities for this court to clean its ranks.
Crimes are wrongs against society. I am of the firm conviction that they cannot be deterred by another wrong. If we truly desire a society that works to rid itself from the menace of illegal drugs and corruption, we should strengthen the institutions that effect the rule of law. Support should be given to those who struggle to do what is right.
For the consideration of the banc.
Footnotes
1. Judge Roberto Navidad was killed in 2008.
2. Judge Lorenda Mupas was dismissed in 2007 for gross misconduct and ignorance of the law, while Judge Rene Gonzales retired in 2016.
3. Letter of the Court Administrator to the Chief Justice dated 8 August 2016, p. 2.
4.Id.
5. See Affidavit executed by Judge Dagala on 3 October 2016.
6. Re: Partial Report on the Fact-Finding Investigation of Judges whom President Duterte claims to have been involved in illegal drugs.
7. Partial Report, p. 1.
8. While the minutes of the 3 October 2016 conference referred to a "report" (p. 2, 2nd par.) from the Police Superintendent Augusto M. Marquez, Jr.,a close perusal of the documents would show that it was merely a designation order and authorization for PSsupt Wilson C. Asueta and PCInsp Al Paglinawan to appear and represent the PNP in the preliminary conference.
9. Issued in the Petition for Habeas Corpus filed by Dineros, et al.,which was docketed as Spl. Proc. No. 08-9498.
10. His SALN for the succeeding years were unavailable.
11. "An Act Amending the Provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended, entitled "Codifying the laws on illegal/unlawful possession, manufacture, dealing in, acquisition or disposition of firearms, ammunition or explosives or instruments used in the manufacture of firearms, ammunition or explosives, and imposing stiffer penalties for certain violations thereof, and for relevant purposes."
12. Florence F. Hibionada, PDEA gives Friday's House probe a 'thumbs-up,' 10 March 2009, THE NEWS TODAY, available at (last accessed 5 December 2016).
The relevant portion of the news article reads:
xxx xxx xxx
For Representative Garin, the House probe in its entirety opened realizations that government prosecution starting off from police operations need more legal assistance.
"Judging from the accounts of our invited resource persons from the police and the PDEA, it is evident that there is an immediate need to further empower them legally. The present set-up does not provide our police enough legal assistance from the very day they did their police operations to the actual preparation of complaints and cases to be pursued. So what happens is that along the way the complaints and cases are either downgraded or upgraded wrongly thus leading to the failure of prosecution.This is one area where I would want to introduce amendments to the law and have a review on the responsiveness of our current laws to the current needs of our police in general, the PDEA in particular and the community," Garin said in a The News Today (TNT) interview. (Emphasis supplied)
xxx xxx xxx
13. Section 6, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution.
14.Office of the Court Administrator v. Ruiz,A.M. No. RTJ-13-2361 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 13-4144-RTJ),2 February 2016 citing Civil Service Commission v. Andal,623 Phil. 280 (2009) and Agpalo, Legal and Judicial Ethics (2009),Eighth Edition, p. 686.
15. 11 September 2001.
16. See Planas v. Reyes,492 Phil. 288 (2005).
LEONEN, J.,concurring:
1. Adm. Matter No. 13-11-09-SC August 12, 2014 [En Banc].